TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court grants import replenishment license per 1980-81 policy, rejects claim under 1976-77 policy. Corrective action ordered.</h1> The court partially allowed the writ petitions, directing the issuance of an additional import replenishment license in accordance with Appendix 17 of the ... Import replenishment claim Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to import replenishment benefits under the Import Trade Control Policy.2. Applicability of restrictions from subsequent years' policies.3. Validity of rejection of claims under para 15 of the 1976-77 policy.4. Legality of imposing a 15% cut on the licence.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Entitlement to Import Replenishment BenefitsThe petitioner, engaged in the manufacture and export of electric fans, claimed entitlement to import replenishment benefits under the Import Trade Control Policy for 1976-77. Specifically, the petitioner sought additional import replenishment at 30% of the FOB value of exports and an additional allocation of 1% under para 15. The court confirmed that the petitioner was entitled to import replenishment to the extent of 5% under Col. 3 of Section 2, 30% under Col. 5 of Section 2, and 1% under para 15, totaling 36% of FOB value.Issue 2: Applicability of Restrictions from Subsequent Years' PoliciesThe petitioner argued that restrictions from the 1980-81 policy should not apply to imports based on 1976-77 exports. The court examined para 209 of the 1980-81 policy, which allows exporters to opt for the 1980-81 policy in toto if they had not opted for earlier policies. The court agreed that the petitioner could opt for the 1980-81 policy in toto, meaning the first part of para 209 (which restricts items based on appendices 3, 6, 8, and 9) did not apply. Appendix 17 of the 1980-81 policy, which governs the petitioner, allows import of winding wires without gauge restrictions, subject only to appendix 4 (absolute banned list).Issue 3: Validity of Rejection of Claims under Para 15The petitioner's claim under para 15 was rejected on the ground that he had already received full cash assistance. The court noted that the government's scheme provided that if a person avails of benefits under para 15, the cash assistance would be reduced correspondingly. Since the petitioner had already obtained full cash assistance, he could not subsequently claim benefits under para 15. The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's claim under para 15.Issue 4: Legality of Imposing a 15% Cut on the LicenceThe petitioner's application for additional import replenishment was filed late, beyond the stipulated six months but within 24 months. According to paras 31 and 32 of the 1976-77 policy, applications filed late could be considered with a cut, depending on the delay. The authorities imposed a 15% cut, appropriate for applications filed after 18 months but within 24 months. The court found no fault with this imposition, noting that the Chief Controller had allowed the revision and imposed the cut, indicating satisfaction with the reasons for the delay.Conclusion:The court allowed the writ petitions partly, directing the issuance of an additional import replenishment licence in terms of Appendix 17 of the 1980-81 policy for 15% of the FOB value of exports. The petitioner's claim for benefits under para 15 of the 1976-77 policy was rejected. The authorities were instructed to correct and reissue the licences accordingly and consider the petitioner's request for revalidation of the licences for 12 months, if permissible under the 1980-81 policy.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
